Text Size

Digg/Buzz It Up

POLITICO 44

President Barack Obama is back in the driver’s seat. It’s not just the historic victory on health care.

In responding sharply to Israel’s announcement that it was going ahead with 1,600 new housing units in East Jerusalem, the U.S. president strengthened his hand abroad and at home. Though greater difficulties loom in the Middle East, the president can now address them from a position of strength.

This is a change. Early on, the administration misplayed its hand on settlement construction. By demanding a freeze, including East Jerusalem, the administration asked for something it couldn’t get. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu defied the U.S. — and a shocked White House saw it had no way of making it stick.

That fiasco, the biggest foreign policy mistake by the administration, left Middle East policy in disarray.

The ambitious administration plan to make Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts a centerpiece of foreign policy fell apart. For the next year, the administration worked to rebuild its position and its prestige for a fresh try.

This explains why the administration had to respond strongly to the ill-timed Israeli housing announcement during Vice President Joe Biden’s visit this month. After a humiliating defeat on this issue last year, Washington could not give the impression that Israel was able to abuse it at will.

Washington’s ability to extract concessions from the Arabs, much less to pressure Iran, depends on a perception of U.S. strength. The more the Israelis kicked sand in America’s face, the more the administration looked like a 98-pound weakling.

Obama grasped that, this time, it was the Israelis who had gone too far.

Whether the timing of the Ramat Shlomo housing announcement was intentional, Israel’s failure to coordinate on such a sensitive subject was a blunder. It damaged its closest ally.

While most Israelis agree that they have the right to build in East Jerusalem, it was clear to Israeli public opinion that Netanyahu’s government had mishandled the matter. This could not be blamed on the United States.

Israelis, even those who agreed with Netanyahu on the housing decision, realized that Israel’s actions had put it in the wrong. Pressure on Netanyahu to limit the damage was intense.

Obama saw the opportunity and took it. In a 43-minute telephone call described as “blistering,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave Netanyahu a list of things he needed to do to get the relationship back on track.

The screw tightened as David Axelrod denounced Israel’s “insult.” Next, the White House announced that Middle East negotiator George Mitchell’s trip to Israel was “delayed” for mysterious “technical” reasons.

Faced with this combination, the Israelis have moved to calm Washington’s ire. Hundreds of Palestinian prisoners are to be released and the blockade of Gaza relaxed. But on Jerusalem, the Israelis reiterated their longtime position that East Jerusalem is part of Israel and no one can tell the Israelis whether or not to build there.

Readers' Comments (25)

By demanding a freeze, including East Jerusalem, the administration asked for something it couldn’t get.

Israel illegally colonizes occupied Arab East Jerusalem, land illegally grabbed by means of a war Israel started. Colonization of occupied land is in violation of the Geneva Convention. The occupation itself is in violation of UN Security Council resolutions and international law since the acquisition of land through war is inadmissible.

Therefore as Israel's sponsor we have every right to demand that Israel cease being a criminal state. Israel's well-known criminality boomerangs back on us in terrorist attacks such as 9/11, and the warmongering Israel Lobby lies us into unnecesasary wars: Iran is next on their wish list.

What planet is this guy on? THe 1,600 new houses are still a go. I'll believe the prisoner release when I read about it in a newspaper. And after a week of hurling insults at Bibi Obambi has to toast him in the WH.

Yes Obambi has shown once again that he is great at beating up on his allies like Isreal and his public option democrat allies in Congress, but completely ineffective against America's enemies.

Currently, we are worried about al Qaeda spreading around the world and about Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. Yet the key to solving both these problems is Israeli/Palestinian peace. Bin Laden recently reiterated that the root cause of al Qaeda's attacks against us has been our support of the brutal Israeli occupation, and the Iranian president, once again, speaking at the UN, emphad the centrality of Israel's atrocities which prevent world peace.

It is clear that the Israelis and Palestinians can not achieve peace without our help. The charter of Israel's ruling Likud party explicitly opposes a Palestinian state in Palestine, and Prime Minister Netanyahu has no intention of stopping the illegal settlement expansion which inspires such anti-American hatred and violence.

Therefore, it is high time the US puts forth its own peace proposal. As noted in The Iraq Study Group Report, "The United States will not be able to achieve its goals in the Middle East unless the United States deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict." and "The only basis on which peace can be achieved is that set forth in UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 and in the principle of 'land for peace.' "

In July 2000, President Clinton brought Palestinian President Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Barak to Camp David for peace negotiations, but Arafat was not offered a fair deal in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 242 which calls on Israel to withdraw from occupied territory including occupied Arab East Jerusalem, the location of Islam's third holiest site (after Mecca and Medina). As reported in Clayton Swisher's book The Truth About Camp David (p.327), Arafat said "If anyone imagines that I might sign away Jerusalem, he is mistaken. I am not only the leader of the Palestinian people; I am also the vice president of the Islamic Conference." "I am only asking that UN Resolution 242 be implemented. I am speaking only about 22 percent of Palestine, Mr President." "Do you want to come to my funeral? I would rather die than agree to Israeli sovereignty over the Haram al-Sharif." [The 22% refers to the fact that although the UN in 1947 partitioned Palestine roughly equally into a Jewish state and an Arab state, the 1967 UN Security Council Resolution 242 only accords the Arabs 22% of Palestine, ie the armistice line before the 1967 war. The Israelis ever since have been trying to whittle this 22% down farther through settlement expansion in Palestinian territory.]

After the failure at Camp David, President Clinton offered what has come to be known as the "Clinton Parameters" in December 2000. On territory, the Palestinian state would control 94-96 percent of the West Bank, with a 1-3 percent land swap from Israel proper...On Jerusalem, "Arab areas are Palestinian and Jewish ones are Israeli. This would apply to the Old City as well." (Swisher p. 396). Arafat had questions about the details but basically accepted the parameters in January 2001. (Swisher p.399-402).

Clinton's ideas were further refined at the peace talks at Taba, Egypt later that month, but by now George Bush was president,with his neocon-dominated administration, and forbade US participation. Nevertheless, the gaps lessened at Taba. (Swisher p. 402). Later, the Geneva Accord, an unofficial virtual peace accord, developed from the Taba talks. (Swisher p. 403)

In 2002, the Saudi Peace Plan was offered, calling for Israel's withdrawal from occupied territory in exchange for peace, diplomatic recognition and normalization of relations with the Arab world. Palestinian President Arafat accepted this plan in 2002. Still on the table as the Arab Peace Initiative, it has been endorsed by the entire Arab/Muslim world, including Iran. As Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal wrote in The New York Times, September 13, 2009, the initiative also calls for "the refugee issue to be solved later through mutual consent."

Late in President George W. Bush's term, Bush finally saw the light and re-started peace negotiations. Again the two sides came close to peace before Israeli Prime Minister Olmert had to step down due to corruption allegations. As reported in Newsweek June 22, 2009, by Kevin Peraino, "Olmert told me he met with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in September 2008 and unfurled a map of Israel and the Palestinian territories. He says he offered Abbas 93.5 to 93.7 percent of the Palestinian territories along with a land swap of 5.8 percent and a safe-passage corridor from Gaza to the West Bank that he says would make up the rest. The Holy Basin of Jerusalem would be under no sovereignty at all and administered by a consortium of Saudis, Jordanians, Israelis, Palestinians and Americans. Regarding refugees, Olmert says he rejected the right of return and instead offered, as a 'humanitarian gesture,' a small number of returnees, although smaller than the Palestinians wanted--a very, very limited number.' "

The Economist ( February 14, 2009) has noted that the outlines of a Palestinian state have been more of less agreed to by sensible Palestinians and Israelis for the past decade: "Israel would return to the armistice line that existed before the 1967 war, with minor adjustments and territorial swaps of equal and quality, and would probably keep the three biggest Jewish settlement blocks that bulge out from the 1967 line. Jerusalem would be tortuously but fastidiously divided, allowing each side to have its capital there, with international oversight of the holy places. Palestinians would have a symbolic right for their refugees to return on the understanding that only a small and carefully calculated proportion of them would actually do so. Palestine would be sovereign but demilitarized, with an international force, perhaps led by NATO, securing its borders, both along the Jordan Valley and maybe between Gaza and Egypt. A road-and-rail link, internationally monitored, might well connect the 50km (30 miles) or so between Gaza and the West Bank."

America should endorse a fair and just plan. As stated in The Economist (September 26, 2009), as the stalemate persists, president Obama "should not blink from the prospect of reducing aid to Israel and rethinking America's knee-jerk backing for it in such forums as the UN..." Compromises over land etc. "will not weaken Israel; rather, a two-state solution is the best guarantee of its future safety." Ours too.

Mr. Mead needs to try a different mushroom on his pizzas. His ideas piece is pure fantasy. Consider:

1. Bo got PO'd at Israel for announcing housing development while Biden was there. So he decides to beat on Israel, only problem is Bebe Netanyahu actually listens to the will of his people, and I doubt you would see Bebe bowing to any other head of state.

2.The Russians announced plans to bring their nuclear reactor online in Iran while Hillary was there? Where is the outrage from Obama for the slap in the face of your Secretary of State? None, because Obama is more interested in dismantling our nuclear deterrance capability. If Obama had any stones, he would have told the Russians we will continue talks on nuke disarmament when that nuke plant in Iran is mothballed. But Obama has no stones.

3.How is that kumbaya moment when Brazil told Hillary to pound sand on sanctions against Iran? Ouch! Brazil, come on folks, until Obama Brazil was a tight with the U.S.

Hillary and the Obama administration are getting slapped around by foriegn governments large and small around the planet. When Obama talked about rebuilding respect for the U.S. after the "failed" Bush administration, he failed to understand he would be viewed by the rest of the world as weak. World leaders understand Obama is all talk and no substance. He backed out of missle defense with the Ukraine and Chech Republic leaving them out there alone against a newly aggressive Russia.

Mr. Mead needs to sober up and see the failure of the Obama foreign policy for what it is, A TOTAL FAILURE!

Yeah baby, rewrite history. People make it sound like the palestinians had the land through the millenia. Most of the property they have was sold or given to them by the British, 20 years prior to the state of Israel forming. Gee, how was it British land to give them? The Arabs never wanted to give them anything until the Jews had it.

Why should the Israelis give them anything? Show me where it states, by the Palestinians, that they declare Israel has a right to exist. Oh, I forgot, they won't state it. In fact, they still hold as part of their doctrine that Israel must be destroyed.

Soon, (but not soon enough), Obama will be gone and we will have a president, who believes in G-d and remembers who our allies are.

All right - good article. Tough but fair. We've got a long way to go with the Israel/Palestinian peace process - but it sounds like we're getting back on track.

I love this administration! Watching them work is fascinating. Even when they make a mistake, they take a hard look at it and somehow pivot in the right direction. What an exciting time to be a young Democrat!

Just this morning Obama signed the Healthcare bill into law. And now we're already moving forward in several other areas. Go Dems!

A strong case can be made for imposing sanctions on Israel rather than Iran. Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons, and its clandestine program has never been under UN oversight. Israel even jailed in solitary confinement Israeli nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu who blew the whistle on the covert nuclear weapons program.

It is Israel which threatens Iran, not vice versa. The Wall Street Journal (7/8/09) reported that "an Israeli submarine believed to be carrying nuclear-tipped missiles" had moved towards Iran. Whereas Iran has not invaded another country since the late 18th century and occupies no one, Israel invades and attacks at will and illegally occupies Palestine and parts of Syria and Lebanon. Iranian President Ahmadinejad speaking at Columbia University 9/24/07 and elsewhere on American TV stated that he did not seek the destruction of the Israeli people but only wished for a change in their leadership so as to end their illegal occupations. Ahmadinejad said he would agree to any peace with Israel endorsed by the Palestinian people. He also explained that he did not deny that the Nazi Holocaust happened, he only wanted more research into the details and stressed that the German atrocities against the Jews should not be used to try to excuse Israeli atrocities against the Palestinians.

Many groups including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and even Israeli veterans have reported that Israel committed war crimes during its Gaza massacre in January. More than 1400 Palestinians were killed including at least 900 civilians according to human rights groups. Three Israeli civilians were killed. (The Boston Globe 7/16/09)

A 9/15/09 report by the UN Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict found Israel guilty of numerous war crimes against innocent civilians. Israelis used disproportionate force and deliberately attacked civilian targets, such as schools and hospitals, with heavy artillery and precision missiles from drones. They shot in cold blood civilians who were waving white flags and following Israeli instructions. They wantonly destroyed food, water, and sewerage facilities and rained down incendiary deadly white phosphorus on civilians. They shelled mosques during evening prayers and a UN relief compound which they knew was sheltering 700 civilians and which contained stored fuel.

Meanwhile, despite US objections, illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank keep expanding. The New York Times 9/14/09 reports that the Jewish settlers plunk down their settlements between Palestinian villagers and their farmlands. The Israelis then block their way so that the Palestinians can not get to their land at which time the settlers seize the Palestinian farmland claiming that it was "abandoned." Another favorite settler trick is setting fire to the Palestinian farms and orchards. It is not surprising that Israel's brutal occupations breeds the expected response from resistance groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

In their determination to steal all of Palestine, the Israel Lobby has created and propagated numerous myths, such as the lie that there are really no Palestinian people. In fact the Lobby falsely claims that Palestine was an empty wasteland when Zionists were immigrating there in the late 19th-20th century.

Palestine has historically been described as the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. Ancient Palestine was known as the land of Canaan and had been inhabited for thousands of years before the Hebrew invasion of around 1200 BC. Genetic evidence shows that today's Palestinian Arabs descend from a population that lived in this area from these earliest prehistoric times predating the Hebrew conquest. Indeed, as noted by the late Columbia University Professor Edward W. Said, "Palestine is the birthplace of urban life" with towns still inhabited after up to 9000 years. (Said, Blaming the Victim)

Situated at the crossroads of many cultures, Palestine has had many rulers. Following the Hebrew invasion, the land has been ruled by Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, etc. By 1516 Palestine was a province in the Ottoman Empire known for its beauty and fertility. By 1853, there were about 500,000 people living in Palestine, almost all Arabs except for 20,000 Jews. The Palestinian Arabs lived in small villages with olive groves and farms producing wheat, corn, barley, sesame, cotton, etc. (Ilan Pappe, A History of Modern Palestine) Thus is another myth shattered, namely that the Arabs in Palestine were nomads who moved there to get jobs from Jewish immigrants. It is these olive groves, centuries old, which the Jewish settlers still today keep uprooting.

The "father of Zionism" Theodor Herzl, in advocating Jewish immigration to Palestine, inspired the rabbis of Vienna to send a fact-finding mission there in the late 18th century. Their two rabbis cabled back from Palestine, "The bride is beautiful but she is married to another man." (Avi Shlaim, The Iron Wall) In other words, the land of Palestine was beautiful but already occupied by Arabs.

Nevertheless, against the desire of the Arabs living in Palestine, Jewish immigration exploded so that by 1947, the Jewish population was one third of the total and Jews owned 6-7% of the land. The Arabs opposed giving up half of Palestine as a Jewish State to compensate for the Nazi Holocaust, (why should Palestinians be punished for something the Germans did?), but they had no say in the UN decision. The myth that Arabs left Palestine of their own accord at that time has been also shown to be a lie. The Zionists had crafted a plan using terrorism to drive them out, so as to steal their land and create a Jewish state. (Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine) This process continues to this day. (See previous blogs "Sand******s" 11/16/08, "Is Israel a Racist State?" 12/24/08, "Lest We Forget: Jewish Terrorism 1/29/09, and "Religious Genocide' 5/4/09).

Another myth is that the Arabs started the 1967 war, whereas it was Israel who attacked first. Clearly this war was designed to expand Israel's territory as shown by the fact that settlements keep expanding. Still another myth is the so-called "generous offer" turned down by Palestinian President Arafat at Camp David in 2000. This offer was unacceptable to the entire Arab/Muslim world as it was not in accordance with international law and UN Security Council Resolutions. The blatantly biased pro-Israel US negotiating team at Camp David, led by Dennis Ross, doomed it to failure. We should have been even-handed. (Clayton E. Swisher The Truth About Camp David) (See previous blogs "The Myth of the Generous Offer" 5/13/07, and "A US Peace Plan" 9/29/09)

The truth is that it is the Arab/Muslim World which has long had a fair just peace plan on the table, endorsed in 2002 by Yassir Arafat as well as Saddam Hussein and virtually the rest of the world except for Israel and the US. If this had been accepted then, we would not be going bankrupt fighting all these unnecessary wars.

Mead at the Council on Foreign Relations approves of the strategy of condemning Israel to see if that helps move Arab and Muslim intransigence. I saw one quote from the Arab League that said Obama was at least saying the right words. But "power"? Ruthlessness, cunning, and determination are Obama qualities. But is he strong enough to give the "Take it or leave it" message he must eventually give the Palestinians and Arab League once they see Israel's bottom line offer on a Palestinian state without a capital in Jerusalem?